Title: Dirt! The Movie Directors: Gene Rosow, Bill Benenson Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film contends that the earth and humanity are inextricably connected; one cannot live without the other. The rampant misuse of the world’s soil, analogous to a person’s skin, hurts the Earth, leading to problems with food production, soil erosion and desertification, pollution from pesticides, and global warming. The film portrays soil abuse as a problem seen all over the world, not just in industrialized countries or western countries. The effects of soil abuse affect all the people of the world in one way or another. We must learn to protect the soil of the earth if we and the world are to continue to survive.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film goes over several issues that are contributing to the abuse of our land. The first of these is large scale agribusiness, as it has led to the proliferation of both monoculture and pesticide use. Monoculture was an idea put forth in the early days of industrialized farming, in the early 20th century. The advent of mechanized farm equipment like tractors and reapers meant that farms could be larger and more productive than ever before. This is also when then idea of monoculture saw widespread use. Monoculture leads to huge tracts of land dedicated to one type of crop, like corn in the United States, which depletes the soil of nutrients that are not given time to be replenished. This depleted soil means that fertilizers must be used, and pesticides spayed on the crops, as they are more susceptible to disease. These chemicals can either end up in the ground water, or get washed off into rivers and streams, where they eventually cause problems with algal blooms and dead zones in the oceans, and cause developmental and fertility defects in animals and people. Large scale agribusiness also promotes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are genetically altered crops that are supposed to improve some aspect of the crop that the natural crop is lacking in. The health and environmental effects of these crops have not been thoroughly tested, and yet they are for sale today.
The other big issue with agribusiness is a problem itself, the disempowerment of the poor. Agricultural companies go to farmers in developing nations, like India, and sell them farm equipment that they cannot afford and cannot afford to maintain. They are tricked into doing monoculture to stay competitive, but the situation spirals out of control, where they are caught in a cycle where their monoculture requires pesticides and fertilizers they must buy, and they do not have enough money to pay for the upkeep of their equipment or the chemicals, and so must produce more food, which required more pesticides, and so on. They are locked in a cycle of endless debt. In India, over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide over the past decade, sometimes by consuming the very chemicals they couldn’t afford.
Desertification is a result of many aspects of today’s societies, two of them being the lack of agricultural education and urban planning. Cities today have pavement all over the place, and this hard surface is both impermeable to water and light, meaning the soil trapped underneath dries out and heats up from the sunlight absorbed by the dark asphalt. Since water cannot go through the pavement, it runs off it into the sewers, where it then exits into the ocean or river, without having time to soak into the soil and keep it hydrated and nutrient-rich. This leads to dry, empty soil which can just blow away, which contributes to desertification. The lack of agricultural education has been a steadily increasing problem essentially since the industrial revolution hit farming in the early 20th century. The new system of monoculture has caused nothing but problems, and it along with improper agricultural education led to the Dust Bowl in the US in the 1930s, where most of the topsoil was dried up and devoid of nutrients, and simply blew away with the wind. Farmers trying to make a profit today in Africa farm more and more land, exhausting the nutrients and the moisture in the soil and greatly increasing the pace of desertification in the country. An expert on desertification, Pierre Rabhi, said that if properly cultivated, Ethiopia could feed the entire African continent.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found the explanation on the massive effect monoculture has had on the practices of farmers and the health of the land to be very interesting. The film tied monoculture to pollution, algal blooms, dead zones, a drop in quality agricultural education, and the disempowerment of the poor in developing nations by getting then caught in a cycle of debt. It really portrayed the destructive power of this method of farming very well from a social standpoint, as well as an environmental one.
One very powerful part of the film was the story about the large number of suicides in India over the massive debt farmers have. The count of 200,000 deaths in the past 10 years is a huge number for any time span, but all these deaths were suicides by farmers who just couldn’t pay anymore. This segment really showed the personal attachment we have to the land, and how mutually the pain is felt if the earth suffers.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I found the film to be a good departure from the type of films environmental documentaries usually are, as it was lighthearted most of the time and focused a great deal on showing some solutions to the problems, usually right after a sobering part of the narrative. However, there is one aspect of the film that I believe did not need to be as large a part as it was: the spiritual connections with dirt.
The beginning of the film focused on making the viewer feel connected to and emotional about the dirt, and I feel that this helped to bring the viewer in. However, the segment where the religious significance and power of dirt was discussed was largely unnecessary. It connected with our dependence on dirt, but was not of much more use in conveying the film’s message. For the time taken up in explaining the different religious meanings of dirt, more effective discussions and issues could have been discussed.
Another point that I was not compelled by was the story on the people insulating houses by covering walls and floors with mud and manure. This was an interesting tie-in with Vandana Shiva’s childhood experience of adding fresh mud to the floors every day, and the insulating power it had. As a solution, however, it has very limited applicability. Despite its excellent insulating properties, dirt and manure are not two things that people will want in their houses. While an interesting option, it is definitely not a large-scale solution, especially with the barrier of the American culture with respect to what houses should be like.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film addresses people who are not familiar with the abuses of dirt or the problems that cause this abuse. Really, this film addresses anyone who is not familiar with any number of environmental issues, as the film takes an introductory approach to the topics it discusses. As stated before, the movie is relatively light-hearted and is focused on having the viewer build a connection to the dirt, which works well to bring in people that that might not be interested in the issue at first. In doing so, it means that the film did not have as much quantitative data as qualitative information, and that the film did not go into depth on some important issues, yet I feel that going into too much depth would deter people that are just beginning to learn about sustainability problems. Too much information or too somber a message would cause the intended audience to feel insignificant and helpless. To tie in with the relative simplicity of the message, the film used cute cartoon segments and in the solution portion of the film, several simple actions people could take to help solve the problem were given. The cartoons make the film more accessible to younger audiences. With the combination of the lighthearted attitude of the film, the cute cartoon segments, and the outlining of simple tasks people could do relatively easily, the film appeals to the viewer who is new to sustainability issues or unfamiliar with some of the issues and could gain a better understanding of the matrix of issues that a larger problem exists within.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
In talking about the different abuses to dirt throughout the world, the film mentions mountaintop removal, but doesn’t go into any detail about it at all, aside from mentioning the practice. An elaboration on the practice and the health implications from the minerals of the mountain leeching into the water systems would have added to the list of ways in which people are abusing the land. Another point is that the film contained a lot on the social aspects of our interaction with dirt, but relatively little on the scientific importance of dirt. Adding information like some of the major nutrients in dirt or some of the important microorganisms in dirt would have created a stronger compliment to the film’s message.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
As yet another way this film differed from many others, solutions were placed throughout the movie, a tactic I think that allows the issues to be discussed without depressing the viewer so much that they feel they can’t do anything about the problem. Some of these points of intervention included composting waste to create useful soil out of waste, training inmates in prisons in gardening and planting trees in cities as part of probation, and creating a community garden to grow fresh vegetables, fruits and flowers. All these solutions can be done at a community level, which matches perfectly with the personal power the film promotes. The message of the movie and the solutions suggest that if we want to change the situation the world is in, we must act on an individual level.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? The small part on natural building interested me as to what types of mud are used, or in what climates this type of building works best. In researching this, I came across an article for another type of natural building material, cob, which people have been building with for thousands of years. Cob is a mixture of straw, sand and clay. Once mixed, it’s applied by piling it onto the desired spot and shaping it, not needing to be pre-formed in any way. Cob is also known for its durability once it is allowed to dry. There are cob houses built in the 16th century in England that are still in use today. The thickness of cob walls also means that the house stays cool in the summer and warm in the winter (info taken from thegreenestdollar.com).
I was also intrigued by the inmate green programs mentioned in the film, so I decided to find out more about them. The website for the organization mentioned in the movie, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx.org), is loaded with information on what projects they do for the community, services they offer for volunteers who want to help, as well as opportunities for parolees from projects to vocational training.
Directors: Gene Rosow, Bill Benenson
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film contends that the earth and humanity are inextricably connected; one cannot live without the other. The rampant misuse of the world’s soil, analogous to a person’s skin, hurts the Earth, leading to problems with food production, soil erosion and desertification, pollution from pesticides, and global warming. The film portrays soil abuse as a problem seen all over the world, not just in industrialized countries or western countries. The effects of soil abuse affect all the people of the world in one way or another. We must learn to protect the soil of the earth if we and the world are to continue to survive.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film goes over several issues that are contributing to the abuse of our land. The first of these is large scale agribusiness, as it has led to the proliferation of both monoculture and pesticide use. Monoculture was an idea put forth in the early days of industrialized farming, in the early 20th century. The advent of mechanized farm equipment like tractors and reapers meant that farms could be larger and more productive than ever before. This is also when then idea of monoculture saw widespread use. Monoculture leads to huge tracts of land dedicated to one type of crop, like corn in the United States, which depletes the soil of nutrients that are not given time to be replenished. This depleted soil means that fertilizers must be used, and pesticides spayed on the crops, as they are more susceptible to disease. These chemicals can either end up in the ground water, or get washed off into rivers and streams, where they eventually cause problems with algal blooms and dead zones in the oceans, and cause developmental and fertility defects in animals and people. Large scale agribusiness also promotes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are genetically altered crops that are supposed to improve some aspect of the crop that the natural crop is lacking in. The health and environmental effects of these crops have not been thoroughly tested, and yet they are for sale today.
The other big issue with agribusiness is a problem itself, the disempowerment of the poor. Agricultural companies go to farmers in developing nations, like India, and sell them farm equipment that they cannot afford and cannot afford to maintain. They are tricked into doing monoculture to stay competitive, but the situation spirals out of control, where they are caught in a cycle where their monoculture requires pesticides and fertilizers they must buy, and they do not have enough money to pay for the upkeep of their equipment or the chemicals, and so must produce more food, which required more pesticides, and so on. They are locked in a cycle of endless debt. In India, over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide over the past decade, sometimes by consuming the very chemicals they couldn’t afford.
Desertification is a result of many aspects of today’s societies, two of them being the lack of agricultural education and urban planning. Cities today have pavement all over the place, and this hard surface is both impermeable to water and light, meaning the soil trapped underneath dries out and heats up from the sunlight absorbed by the dark asphalt. Since water cannot go through the pavement, it runs off it into the sewers, where it then exits into the ocean or river, without having time to soak into the soil and keep it hydrated and nutrient-rich. This leads to dry, empty soil which can just blow away, which contributes to desertification. The lack of agricultural education has been a steadily increasing problem essentially since the industrial revolution hit farming in the early 20th century. The new system of monoculture has caused nothing but problems, and it along with improper agricultural education led to the Dust Bowl in the US in the 1930s, where most of the topsoil was dried up and devoid of nutrients, and simply blew away with the wind. Farmers trying to make a profit today in Africa farm more and more land, exhausting the nutrients and the moisture in the soil and greatly increasing the pace of desertification in the country. An expert on desertification, Pierre Rabhi, said that if properly cultivated, Ethiopia could feed the entire African continent.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the explanation on the massive effect monoculture has had on the practices of farmers and the health of the land to be very interesting. The film tied monoculture to pollution, algal blooms, dead zones, a drop in quality agricultural education, and the disempowerment of the poor in developing nations by getting then caught in a cycle of debt. It really portrayed the destructive power of this method of farming very well from a social standpoint, as well as an environmental one.
One very powerful part of the film was the story about the large number of suicides in India over the massive debt farmers have. The count of 200,000 deaths in the past 10 years is a huge number for any time span, but all these deaths were suicides by farmers who just couldn’t pay anymore. This segment really showed the personal attachment we have to the land, and how mutually the pain is felt if the earth suffers.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I found the film to be a good departure from the type of films environmental documentaries usually are, as it was lighthearted most of the time and focused a great deal on showing some solutions to the problems, usually right after a sobering part of the narrative. However, there is one aspect of the film that I believe did not need to be as large a part as it was: the spiritual connections with dirt.
The beginning of the film focused on making the viewer feel connected to and emotional about the dirt, and I feel that this helped to bring the viewer in. However, the segment where the religious significance and power of dirt was discussed was largely unnecessary. It connected with our dependence on dirt, but was not of much more use in conveying the film’s message. For the time taken up in explaining the different religious meanings of dirt, more effective discussions and issues could have been discussed.
Another point that I was not compelled by was the story on the people insulating houses by covering walls and floors with mud and manure. This was an interesting tie-in with Vandana Shiva’s childhood experience of adding fresh mud to the floors every day, and the insulating power it had. As a solution, however, it has very limited applicability. Despite its excellent insulating properties, dirt and manure are not two things that people will want in their houses. While an interesting option, it is definitely not a large-scale solution, especially with the barrier of the American culture with respect to what houses should be like.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film addresses people who are not familiar with the abuses of dirt or the problems that cause this abuse. Really, this film addresses anyone who is not familiar with any number of environmental issues, as the film takes an introductory approach to the topics it discusses. As stated before, the movie is relatively light-hearted and is focused on having the viewer build a connection to the dirt, which works well to bring in people that that might not be interested in the issue at first. In doing so, it means that the film did not have as much quantitative data as qualitative information, and that the film did not go into depth on some important issues, yet I feel that going into too much depth would deter people that are just beginning to learn about sustainability problems. Too much information or too somber a message would cause the intended audience to feel insignificant and helpless. To tie in with the relative simplicity of the message, the film used cute cartoon segments and in the solution portion of the film, several simple actions people could take to help solve the problem were given. The cartoons make the film more accessible to younger audiences. With the combination of the lighthearted attitude of the film, the cute cartoon segments, and the outlining of simple tasks people could do relatively easily, the film appeals to the viewer who is new to sustainability issues or unfamiliar with some of the issues and could gain a better understanding of the matrix of issues that a larger problem exists within.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
In talking about the different abuses to dirt throughout the world, the film mentions mountaintop removal, but doesn’t go into any detail about it at all, aside from mentioning the practice. An elaboration on the practice and the health implications from the minerals of the mountain leeching into the water systems would have added to the list of ways in which people are abusing the land. Another point is that the film contained a lot on the social aspects of our interaction with dirt, but relatively little on the scientific importance of dirt. Adding information like some of the major nutrients in dirt or some of the important microorganisms in dirt would have created a stronger compliment to the film’s message.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
As yet another way this film differed from many others, solutions were placed throughout the movie, a tactic I think that allows the issues to be discussed without depressing the viewer so much that they feel they can’t do anything about the problem. Some of these points of intervention included composting waste to create useful soil out of waste, training inmates in prisons in gardening and planting trees in cities as part of probation, and creating a community garden to grow fresh vegetables, fruits and flowers. All these solutions can be done at a community level, which matches perfectly with the personal power the film promotes. The message of the movie and the solutions suggest that if we want to change the situation the world is in, we must act on an individual level.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The small part on natural building interested me as to what types of mud are used, or in what climates this type of building works best. In researching this, I came across an article for another type of natural building material, cob, which people have been building with for thousands of years. Cob is a mixture of straw, sand and clay. Once mixed, it’s applied by piling it onto the desired spot and shaping it, not needing to be pre-formed in any way. Cob is also known for its durability once it is allowed to dry. There are cob houses built in the 16th century in England that are still in use today. The thickness of cob walls also means that the house stays cool in the summer and warm in the winter (info taken from thegreenestdollar.com).
I was also intrigued by the inmate green programs mentioned in the film, so I decided to find out more about them. The website for the organization mentioned in the movie, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx.org), is loaded with information on what projects they do for the community, services they offer for volunteers who want to help, as well as opportunities for parolees from projects to vocational training.